Ranty rant rant.
Dear Mr. Knight,
Much to my displeasure, I have some serious issues with physics, or to be more precise, with the "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" textbook you most regrettably authored. Physics is an interesting, useful, and very precise discipline. In its purest form, it is neither indefinite nor perplexing, and I was, once upon a time, quite fond of the subject.
Therefore, it confuses me that a volume dedicated to teaching physics should be structured in such a logically and grammatically insensible way. Instead of being concise, and carefully explaining how to perform physics problems (which are, in fact, what every teacher ever born will test physics students over) this book is different. It wanders woolily from one vaguely formed and incompletely realized explanation to the next, with apparently random segues for history, biography, or something else completely unrelated to the discipline in question. Combined with its poor sentence structure and rampant use of the passive voice, I find myself at a complete loss as to why any person with a PhD in the discipline would even contemplate using your rubbish to attempt to teach their students introductory physics. While it frightens me to admit it, I fear there is no widely available textbook superior to this one. Considering the aforementioned flaws, this situation ought to be rectified immediately, before more innocent students garner irreversibly horrible first impressions of physics.
Venomously yours,
Me
Much to my displeasure, I have some serious issues with physics, or to be more precise, with the "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" textbook you most regrettably authored. Physics is an interesting, useful, and very precise discipline. In its purest form, it is neither indefinite nor perplexing, and I was, once upon a time, quite fond of the subject.
Therefore, it confuses me that a volume dedicated to teaching physics should be structured in such a logically and grammatically insensible way. Instead of being concise, and carefully explaining how to perform physics problems (which are, in fact, what every teacher ever born will test physics students over) this book is different. It wanders woolily from one vaguely formed and incompletely realized explanation to the next, with apparently random segues for history, biography, or something else completely unrelated to the discipline in question. Combined with its poor sentence structure and rampant use of the passive voice, I find myself at a complete loss as to why any person with a PhD in the discipline would even contemplate using your rubbish to attempt to teach their students introductory physics. While it frightens me to admit it, I fear there is no widely available textbook superior to this one. Considering the aforementioned flaws, this situation ought to be rectified immediately, before more innocent students garner irreversibly horrible first impressions of physics.
Venomously yours,
Me